not a socialist and have never identified as one on this website + why are you essentially subtweeting when my post is right above you

also reminder anarchists are just super-democrats

Damn, I'm not tryna see my 2 favorite posters in the politics section have a beef with each other

But on the real, which black woman judge that has a very experienced resume were you hoping to see him choose instead?

From what I read everywhere, of the 3 or 4 Biden was looking at, KBJ def seemed like the furthest left.

Either way, KBJ will definitely be more than fine IF we can get another term of a Dem president, in order to get Thomas and Alito TF out of here and replaced with anything resembling sane people in the court.

My personal opinion is he shouldn't have been trying to fill a SC seat with a black woman if he couldn't find someone experienced enough in that direction of the law. This isn't a criticism of black women, it's just that when you put someone on the SC, you're doing it essentially forever. With that said, why put in a black woman over a black man? Just for the historical value of it, because of the intersectional approach? I understand it's important demographically but from a legal perspective was what was important A) the furthest left candidate being picked or B) a black woman being picked. Because if it's actually A, then you're clearly limiting yourself by picking based on identity rather than politics, and if it's B, then any other argument is arbitrary and it doesn't matter who he picked. Even with the nuance of "i want the furthest left black woman possible", if the intersectional background is the most important, why not pick someone who has actually gone through the motions and actually grew up in an impoverished and marginalized environment?? I'm tired of people who are essentially aristocrats being the only people filling these positions, and to me intersectionality is only valid if it also encompasses economic background. Because without that how is it even intersectional to begin with? Wouldn't it make more sense to fill regional/circuit courts with less experienced but more intersectional picks and then for the SC pick someone furthest politically in a left direction instead rather than putting in someone who isn't reflective of that?

Very well put and I agree in principle with all you are saying for the most part.

In general, I would certainly prefer ideology to be the guiding force for a selection rather than representation when as you said, there are always going to be multi-layers to a representation selection to consider. However, at the same time I don't think it's quite fair to paint KBJ as a justice who will rule AS an aristocrat based on her short time ruling already.

And I do think if Biden was always going to select a justice in the ideological range of Kagan for this pick, I would certainly prefer for it to be given to a black woman (even if she does come from a privileged background). Because black women in general (privileged or not) are so underrepresented in our government/society.

dude needs to get these old ass mfs heart rate up so they can get off their ass and pass BBB

Is Resetera the most ultra lib site on the Internet?

Some people are having borderline o*****s in State of the Union thread

lmfaoo i need some screenshots

Kim Reynolds

We had two s*** tier presidents back to back in Trump & Biden.

These political parties are sabotaging us,

This man got to D_e

To be clear i'm not inherently saying that she's going to be an aristocratic ruler. My gripe is that, as you say yourself, "her short time ruling (already)"; she isn't significantly experienced to where you can really judge her record based on an extrapolation of a history of rulings or ruling philosophy. You instead have to go off of a very short section of rulings which may not translate over to long term philosophical consistencies. This has been a historic weakness in the democratic party for example, finding people very early on and going all in on them because they "fit the bill", only to find out within like several years the person did not actually fit that affinity. Hell, this exact same thing has happened to numerous senators and mayors/governors just over the last few years - thank god that these are not lifetime positions like the SC where dems could have made that mistake and put in someone for life based off of a single good year only to have them turn around and completely spit in the face of prior history. Imagine if people elevated Sinema early on because of her association with the Green Party & Anti-War Protests and open LGBT identifications? There were no "warning signs" for her early on and she seemed super far left and look at her now after settling comfortably into politics. I don't like picking people for positions because hthey "fit the bill", but for a rotating post, it's whatever. For a lifetime seat like the SC? I want as airtight of a pick as humanly possible, and I'm not sure if her current resume heeds that.

Gotcha. Very fair, and I totally see what you’re saying.

Wait how is Obama any different from Biden if you don’t like the policy stances/political approach Biden has been taking?

Unless you just didn’t feel like saying 3 in a row, 4 in a row, etc. lol

Yea just didn’t feel like going further back than the recent two lmaoo

If you say you have Adblock on that website they ban you

They ban people for the simplest s*** too

Gas prices being this high is a for sure L for dems in midterms this year

idk why yall want biden to get any of his stuff passed its obvious when he doesnt get his way things are better lmao you shouldnt want to goverment to pass anything really in general.

lol he said f*** the midterms

Dems losing every race and they can thank Biden for being top 3 worst presidents.